get_wifi_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a GET request via 'WiFiApi.api_wifi_status_get()', indicating a read-only operation, and describes the complete return structure. It doesn't mention error cases, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and uses structured bullet points for return fields. It is somewhat lengthy but every section adds value—purpose, API details, response schema, and use case.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must convey what the tool returns and when to use it. It does so thoroughly by listing all fields of StatusResponse and providing a diagnostic use case, making it fully complete for a simple getter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivial. The description adds no parameter info but fully explains the response, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 is correct since there are no parameters to elaborate on.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly says 'Retrieve Wi-Fi connection status from the Busy Bar device,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wifi_networks by focusing on the current connection status rather than available networks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Use case' section provides clear context: 'Diagnostics for network troubleshooting — verify SSID, signal strength, security type, and IP assignment before debugging connectivity issues.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.